Laserfiche WebLink
, <br /> TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) <br />' <br /> b 3 4 MONITORING ACTIVITIES 11 <br /> 6 3 5 DURATION 12 <br /> 6 3 6 FEASIBILITY 12 <br /> 6 3 7 ESTIMATED COSTS 12 <br />' 7 0 GROUND WATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES 13 <br /> 71 IN-SITU AIR SPARGING 13 <br />' 711 PRINCIPLES ' 13 <br /> 7 1 2 BASIC SYSTEM DESIGN 14 <br /> 71 3 MONITORING ACTIVITIES 14 <br />' 714 FEASIBILITY 14 <br /> 715 DURATION 14 <br /> T 716 COST 14 <br />' <br /> 72 GROUND WATER EXTRACTION 14 <br /> 7 2 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES 14 <br /> 7 2 2 TREATMENT METHODS 15 <br />' <br /> 723 FEASIBILITY 15 <br /> 724 DURATION 15 <br /> 7 2 5 COST 16 <br /> 73 IN-SITU BIOREM EDIATIONBIOENHANCEMENT 16 <br /> 73 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES 16 <br /> 7 3 2 NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS AND TOXICITY 16 <br /> 7 3 3 FEASIBILITY 17 <br /> 7 3 4 DURATION 17 <br /> 73 5 COST 17 <br /> 8 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBON-RvIPACTED <br />' SOIL 17 <br /> , <br /> go RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBON-EVIPACTED <br />' GROUND WATER 18 <br /> 100 LIMITATIONS 18 <br /> FIGURES <br /> Figure 1 -Location Map <br /> Figure 2 - Site Plan <br /> Figure 3 - Relative Ground Water Elevation <br />' Figure 4 - Effective Radius of Influence for Soil Vapor Extraction Wells <br /> Figure 5 - Proposed In-Situ Air Sparging Wells <br />